"Karate Sparring Distance" and self protection

A lot has been said about how Karate is great for self protection, however, karate-ka practice this at Karate sparring distance which, when it comes to it, is poor for self protection.

Yes, sparring distances do vary from style to style (Shotokan generally being quite a large distance, Kyokushin being much closer etc), which generally leads people to believe that Kyokushin is "better" for self protection.

Looking at this from a self protection point of view, does this mean that Kyokushin is indeed better for self protection than for instance Shotokan? In my opinion (having sparred in both styles), yes Kyokushin is good for defending oneself from close distance, however...those who train in Shotokan become comfortable at dealing with people from further away, therefore the moment someone comes in closer than the Shotokan practicioner is happy with, they are more prepared to deal with them aren't they? Doesn't sparring at a greater distance make you more prepared to deal with an "enemy" if they shorten that distance?

Has this post made any sense to anyone else? Sorry if it's more of a ramble, but I've just had a rather harsh 12 hour shift.

I disagree with the premise that karate sparring distance is poor for self-protection. In an ideal setting, maintaining and managing a distance most untrained people can't strike from while striking them at will is the way to go in my book. But as Iain always says, it is all dependent upon context. I work in a correctional facility where assaults always occur unexpectedly and at close range. They also usually happen indoors in relatively confined areas. I realize few work in these circumstances, but even in civilian self-protection scenarios, close up attacks with limited maneuver room is often the norm. That's where close quarter combative application (the stuff of our kata) is essential. But augmenting it with a dose of good old-fashion sparring acumen ain't a bad idea.

A lot has been said about how Karate is great for self protection, however, karate-ka practice this at Karate sparring distance which, when it comes to it, is poor for self protection.

Yes, sparring distances do vary from style to style (Shotokan generally being quite a large distance, Kyokushin being much closer etc), which generally leads people to believe that Kyokushin is "better" for self protection.

Looking at this from a self protection point of view, does this mean that Kyokushin is indeed better for self protection than for instance Shotokan? In my opinion (having sparred in both styles), yes Kyokushin is good for defending oneself from close distance, however...those who train in Shotokan become comfortable at dealing with people from further away, therefore the moment someone comes in closer than the Shotokan practicioner is happy with, they are more prepared to deal with them aren't they? Doesn't sparring at a greater distance make you more prepared to deal with an "enemy" if they shorten that distance?

Has this post made any sense to anyone else? Sorry if it's more of a ramble, but I've just had a rather harsh 12 hour shift.

Hi Marcus :)

Firstly, I think we all need to be clear about the difference between "defending oneself at a close distance" and "fighting at close distance". The skills of de-escalation, distance management (without fist showing guards), pre-emptive strikes and if need be defences against common physical acts of violence (compared to combat sport attacks). So whilst I agree the closer the distance the better for self-protection, the context is too different for me to say that Kyokushin is better than any other combat sport just because its distance is closer.

Shotokan allows head strikes (although controlled), is that a more important factor when it comes to making something better for self-protection? or is it the distance as you mentioned? or is it any number of other things?

Similar points can be made for the "Shotokan guy is more prepared to deal with the enemy". ie, the enemy is attacking in a different manner, the defender would not necessarily by in a "fighting stance" etc..

I think that its purely academic as the best way to train "defending oneself from a close distance" is to train directly in self-protection style scenarios from a close distance. If you all you train is Kyokushin or Shotokan sparring, that is all you will get very good at.

Hi Nezumi,

I think we are in agreement here? and whilst I don't see much crossover between training self-protection scenarios and combat sport sparring, as long as the practioner understands the benefits and pitfalls of each kind of training, I also see no reason not to train both if thats what you want to do :)

I think I didn't put my point across as well as I had hoped, in my opinion, maintaining the distance is paramount. In Shotokan we spar at a greater distance, and as soon as someone tries to close that distance, we react, either moving away to maintain the distance, or we block, counter or even pre-empt.

Nezumi, I work in a similar environment to yourself, I always maintain the distance, those who have no idea about such things are the ones who get assaulted.

Some time ago I trained in a club that I used to teach in. It's a university club, and was always quite sports-oriented. These days, it is totally sports-oriented, and very good at it. The class was close-range bunkai based, and much closer range than they were used to.

At one point, I was working with someone who was very good, and very open-minded. The sequence ended with a close in hook punch. when it got to that point, he immediatly jumped out to shotokan sparring range, and threw a nice gyaku-tsuki. I pointed out that this was not what we were working on, and was explicitly not what was in the kata. I also pointed out the problem by grabbing him as he tried to move and ended up with him bent over in an awful position. It took a few goes for him to get out of the habit of jumping, but then his punches were all over the place, with him twisting early and not having any weight behind it.

When I trained in that club it was very much "You don't need to practice knees as a mae-geri is really a knee too", and "you don't need to practice a short punch as a long punch has a short punch in it". Since then I have realised that these techniques are there, but are useless unless you practice it. I remember one person saying that they didn't need to practice close range self-defence, as their kumite skills would never let anyone get that close.

While the avoidance and long range combat that you learn in sports karate is a great skill for self-defence, not actively working on your close skills means all of your training counts for a lot less if you are grabbed, surprised, or facing multiple assalants. Convincing yourself that long range skills are totally transferable to short range is a dangerous thing.

Fighting has to be learned for all distances (as long as one can be reached anyway) because you never know what sort of situation you're going to confront. That said, my teacher taught that all real fights happen close-in. In sparring and competition you get to move around and play distances and, certainly, that makes sense when the aim is to win in a match-up. You want to stay out of the other guy's range while getting at him in order to claim your point. But real fights have a different aim: To walk away unscathed (or mimimally scathed!) while leaving the other guy in a position from which he cannot pursue or further press his case. Such fights happen fast, without pattern and "inside" where fists meet jaws (and other body parts). Unlike boxing there are no rules and no refs and no points for style, stamina or the number of blows you landed and unlike MMA anything goes! You just have to do it fast. That's why, I suppose, my teacher always placed his emphasis on the immediacy of the clash rather than on stalking, spacing and footwork. All are valuable in their place, of course, but if your aim is to succeed in a real encounter, in the chaos of the moment, then an emphasis on in-close encounters seems most sensible to me. (But perhaps I'm only relecting what I learned from my teacher.)

I view all the competitive Karate formats as not being very similar to self defense.

They can teach relevant skills to self defense, but the formats themselves are utterly different from non-consensual self defense, and if what you what is sparring for self-defense, your sparring should probably be formatted to that, verbally, emotionally, physically, whatever. Iain has a bunch of grat articles of that kind of thing of course. Otherwise the best you are going to get is bleedthrough of some things that are good for self defense, and a bunch of other stuiff that is not really relevant.

It's an extreme example but it's akin to asking if American football or Rugby is good for self defense. I imagine there are a ton of players in both sports that most martial artists couldn't handle, but the reasons for that can be somewhat secondary to the training, and the training obviously is not oriented to self-defense.

I prefer the knockdown side of things, not because of any claims of superiority of method, but because knockdown at it's best requires a predatory attitude. Someone fit and well trained wants to smash you to the ground. You have to keep a cool head and find a way to knock them down, whilst minimising any damage to yourself.

So that, to me, is what sparring is for. Not style or points, but to build that coolness under pressure and an instinct to finish things when or if escape is impossible. Easy sparring won't build this so I can understand why to many it seems useless.

Gary

EDIT - I remember talking to an ex Para I worked with about milling. NOT about self defence but simply to build and demonstrate that offensive spirit.